- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agree that this petitioner may be disposed of finally at the motion stage itself, without formally admitting the same. We, accordingly, based on the aforesaid agreement between the parties, dispose of the petition today itself finally.
(2.) THE short and only point involved for consideration in this case revolves round the constitutional provision contained in Sub -clause (b) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the constitution of India which permits a competent authority empowered to remove a person from service, to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry if for reasons to be recorded in writing, such an authority is satisfied that the holding of such an enquiry is not reasonably practicable.
(3.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner at the relevant time was work - ing as a school teacher. The allegation against him was that he indulged in an unbecoming and immoral action of writing love letters to one of his girl students and also attempted to seduce her. It is the admitted case of the respondents that based on, what they termed as "summary enquiry", the petitioner was awarded the extreme penalty of termination of his service by the impugned order dated 8th Feb. 2001. It. is also admitted case of the respondents that a proper enquiry as contemplated under Clause (2) of Article 311 was not held in as much as neither any chargesheet, formal or otherwise, was served upon the petitioner nor was he admittedly given any opportunity of hearing or defending himself in the course on any enquiry. Why was an enquiry as contemplated under Clause (2) of Article 311 not held and why was he removed from service without having held any such enquiry has been explained the course of the impugned order. The explanation runs like this: - - "And whereas, the undersigned is further satisfied that the procedure of holding a regular departmental inquiry as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, is not expedient in this case as the same may cause serious embarrassment to the girl student and her parents. As such holding a regular inquiry is dispensed with. The evidence on record establish to guilt of the teacher and hence the continuance of Sh. B.P. Yadav in a co -education residential institution like JNV is prejudicial to the interest of the girl students and the Vidyalaya." As it emerges, and as is clearly seen, the only reason assigned based whereupon the competent authority came to a finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry was that the same may cause serious embarrassment to the girl and her parents. In what way and in which manner would such an embarrassment be caused, the competent authority has not explained in the order. We may, however, infer that what the Authority had in mind by saying so could be the fact that the girl student and her parents being asked to depose before the Enquiry Officer, subject themselves to cross - examination by the delinquent officer and go through all the motions required for the recording of such a deposition. Possibly there should not be any other embarrassment likely to be caused to the girl or her parents which the competent authority had in mind while citing this as a ground and reason for coming to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicably to hold a departmental enquiry.;